Have not found the new decision, but here is the one on the magazine ban in CA. This judge knows his constitution. If you read this all (and it is well worth the read) you will find that he is hinting towards the fact that not only is the magazine ban illegal, but that most of the weapons bans are.
Some quotes from the above ruling:
“Today, self-protection is most important. In the future, the common defense may
once again be most important. Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast
through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law
enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad
policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech.
Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures.
Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a
law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves
into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law.”
In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court provided a simple Second Amendment test in
crystal clear language. It is a test that anyone can understand. The right to keep and bear
arms is a right enjoyed by law-abiding citizens to have arms that are not unusual “in
common use” “for lawful purposes like self-defense.”.....
It is a
hardware test. Is the firearm hardware commonly owned? Is the hardware commonly
owned by law-abiding citizens? Is the hardware owned by those citizens for lawful
purposes? If the answers are “yes,” the test is over. The hardware is protected.
Neither magazines, nor rounds of ammunition, nor triggers, nor barrels are
specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment. Neither are they mentioned in Heller.
But without a right to keep and bear triggers, or barrels, or ammunition and the
magazines that hold ammunition, the Second Amendment right would be meaningless.
Under the simple test of Heller, California’s § 32310 directly infringes Second
Amendment rights. It directly infringes by broadly prohibiting common firearms and
their common magazines holding more than 10 rounds, because they are not unusual and
are commonly used by responsible, law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self-
defense. And “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second
Amendment to keep such weapons.”
Here is the NRA’s news article on it:
Fairfax, Va. - A major victory was secured on Thursday when a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in the NRA-supported case, Rhode v. Becerra. The case challenges the constitutionality of a California law that puts draconian restrictions on ammunition acquisition and transfers as a result of Prop 63 and SB 1235 (2016).
“As the court said, ‘The right to keep and bear arms is the insurance policy behind the right to life ... a shield from the tyranny of the majority.’ California wasn’t just obstructing the people’s fundamental right to defend their families and lives—it was encouraging unlawful hostility toward an individual, Constitutional right,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The NRA funded this case for the same reason the court struck down the laws: enough was enough.”
The law required law-abiding citizens to undergo background checks when purchasing ammunition and for all transactions to occur in-person through a licensed ammunition vendor. Thursday’s injunction means the law cannot be enforced while the case is active unless the decision is stayed.
Found it!! It is 120 pages.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.60.0.pdf